UKC

My partner does arts activities with adults with learning difficulties. She's self employed and works for a charity which is funded by the personal budgets of the clients.

They were assaulted a second time today, punched four times, slapped some months ago by a client who is not provided with a one to one carer by social services. My partner is the only employee, assisted by volunteers. They feel like they will lose their job if they don't put up with it as expected.

Is there any prospect of them being able to continue to work without the of violence? She isn't a member of a union.

Would appreciate any informed advice, thanks.

In reply to iksander:

My sister was a special needs teacher and she was assaulted on two occasions by violent kids. I've got no good news for you, the head of the school wasn't prepared to assist in any constructive manner and she was left to get on with it - she retired early at 50 . So its not just your partner - my advice - you don't go to work to get assaulted or deal with violence (unless your a police officer!) so don't go to that work place anymore.

In reply to iksander:

You say that your partner's self-employed but then that she's an employee. Which is it?

jcm

In reply to cander:

Should probably have a care plan or at the very least a Risk Assessment for the activity. Send an email (paper-trail) with an incident report of what happened and suggestion that for the volunteers, other attendees and their own safety that they think an updated risk assessment needs to be produced.

May not have any effect but most employers...be them charity or not, won't like the thought of a paper-trail regarding an incident or a near miss with no perceived action.

Might be worth seeing if your partner can get any other information regarding the client... other activities and placements they attend to see if their is anything regarding triggers and management/calming techniques

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'd not picked up on that...I presume the charity buys in the activity. If so then then she probably produces the RA and therefore needs to say to the charity I need A, B and C to be in place or I can't run my activity safely or I will need to change my activity so that situation x doesn't happen again.

If they can't do that she needs to walk away.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

She is self employed, by "only employee" I meant that she was the only paid member of staff present.

Doesn't sound promising, I read that there are thousands of assaults on the caring professions every year perpetrated by people with mental health issues or learning disabilities that go unresolved.

She can't afford to do without the work so she'll just have to lump it by the sounds of it.

In reply to iksander:
I know it might sound a bit full on but perhaps get the police involved but not in a blue flashy lights way. A mate of mine had a similar situation whereby an client had assaulted staff and made frequent threats of violence. They had a friendly officer come along and explain the possible outcomes of their continued behaviour in simple terms (i.e. a caution) and from what I remember that person's behaviour improved.

In reply to Oldsign:

You are not wrong, but once again it is Social Services making more work for the police.

In reply to iksander:

Her manager needs to speak to the clients case worker with an email trail saying that due to health and safety at work they are unable to provide activities for this person without a review. The review should look at the incidents and what can be done to prevent reoccurring in the same way as an outdoorsy risk assement.

This person has gone up a category and needs different handling. If no ssuccess contact hse.

In reply to marsbar:

Thanks for the advice. They tried that after the last incident, social services don't acknowledge the needs of the client and there is no additional support available. The client is severely autistic (unable to speak) so I doubt a chat from the police will help.

I imagine the HSE would simply shut down the charity and my partner would lose her job.

In reply to iksander:

In many cases people who are non verbal can still understand. If this is the case has she tried setting firm boundaries with the client and finishing the activity should they demonstrate dangerous behaviour?

Can she refuse to have this particular individual in the class? It doesn't sound like your partner gets very much support from her manager.

In reply to dr_botnik:

Yes the client can understand, but imagine the police would freak them out. The client is indulged by carers to mollify them, and becomes agitated when even mild boundaries are imposed, they get whatever they want whenever they want in their other care settings.


Apparently the group financial viability is limited without this client's personal budget, and turning away difficult clients is seen as "not being professional".

Seems like Social Services have transferred a significant risk to workers and clients to the charity sector while reducing costs. I imagine if the group closes, the clients will be plonked in front of the TV with a pile of junk food full time and my partner will be out of job.

In reply to iksander:

In that case I suggest that your partner gets looking for another job as a matter of urgency.

In reply to iksander:

My other half is a teaching assistant in a residential home for young people & adults with severe autism.
She's been attacked many times, punched, kicked, slapped, has chairs & other furniture thrown at her, as well as various bodily excretions. Oh, and she ended up at hospital a couple of weeks ago after one of the kids slashed her across the stomach with a rake (she wouldn't let him eat the manure they were digging in the garden...).
All for £10,000 a year...

In reply to Bimble:

I don't understand why people do that job for that money.

In reply to iksander:
As others have said there needs to be a risk assessment for the activity, ie...is it over stimulating for example for the client but there also needs to be a risk assessment and care plan for the client which his key worker or social worker should be working to. It's simply not ok for any organisation to just wash their hands of it.
if the client is living in residential care the provider will be regulated by ofsted and their regs will be clear about care plans/risk assessment and so on.

In reply to marsbar:

Because there's no other jobs going at the moment. Trust me, she's looking!

In reply to iksander:

I suppose the thing is they may have got away with it last time, but now it is a clear pattern of risk, not a one off.

The other thing I have to ask is how much are social services paying already and is it actually the "charity" who are taking the Pixx by only paying one worker when SS are funding 2 so they can use the money elsewhere? Unless your partner was in the last meeting with the social worker, she has only the managers word for it.

In reply to Bimble:

I wish her luck.

In reply to iksander:

I'm going to run the gauntlet and be the bad guy here. Your partner is self employed and therefore she should be the one creating her own working conditions and responsible for her safety in the job she is undertaking. On the other hand she may have been pressured by circumstance to take 'self employed' work where the relationship is actually that of employer/employee - if this is the case those hiring remain responsible for her safety and cannot forgo their duty of care. See here for further info: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/employment-status-indicator

My memory might be a bit rusty but I 'think' that an employer does not have to remove risks where steps to do so would be unreasonable - this is why repairs are carried out near live train tracks, although it would be possible to remove the risks (shut the line) it is considered so impractical as not to be required. Working with LD adults contains an element of this, but it is far from the whole story.

I studied employment law 20+ yrs ago but had to revisit it recently due to direct payments leading to lots of 'self employed' PAs who are in no way self employed - they pay tax and are registered as such but their working relationship is that of employee which leaves service users uninsured but still responsible as employers. We are now asking PAs take the test referenced above , most are completely unaware that they are employed despite registering a business and paying their own tax!

In reply to flopsicle:

I am assuming the issue is managing the risk rather than removing it. Things that spring to mind, does it become more manageable with more staff? Are the staff adequately trained? Are volunteers trained? Is it safe and reasonable to use volunteers? Is the art the main thing or just a cover for cheap respite care?

In reply to marsbar:

Absolutely, all issues that need to be considered. What surprised me years ago was that you could have a risk that is highly foreseeable where there is an action which would remove it completely, (shutting off a rail track), and yet there not be a duty to take that action due to it being impractical. Adults with LD may hit, the extent to which it could be avoided and is practical to do so would, I suspect, be hugely case by case.

Hopefully this person has not undertaken the role of supervising volunteers, I haven't the foggiest where someone genuinely self employed would stand if they took that task on and a volunteer was seriously hurt.

In reply to flopsicle:


The legal test is if the cost of shutting down the track is "grossly disproportionate" to the reduction in risk acheived when compared with the residual risk of doing the work with the line open and all the other safety measures in place.

Going back to the "self employed" status, that doesn't absolve the charity of any responsibility. If I hired a self-employed contractor and sent them into a confined space full of toxic gas and pit bulls I'd still be prosecuted for not assessing the risk and ensuring the contractor was competent to carry out the task.

In reply to Ridge:

Just googled 'Grossly Disproportionate' and this came up:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp1.htm "Principles and guidelines to assist HSE in its judgements that duty-holders have reduced risk as low as reasonably practicable"

Looks interesting....

In reply to Bimble:




I'm sorry to hear that, I have a sense that the overloading/underfunding of these services is putting staff and clients in harm's way - I hope she can find another job soon

In reply to marsbar:


That would seem to make sense, my partner was punched from behind so I guess if more staff had been around they could more closely monitor the client.

>Are the staff adequately trained?

She hasn't had any training on dealing with violence

>Are volunteers trained?

Not by the charity. Luckily one of them was a retired head of a school for kids with learning disabilities

>Is it safe and reasonable to use volunteers?

Would have thought not with violent clients

>Is the art the main thing or just a cover for cheap respite care?

The art activities are the main thing, but no carer was available to come from the client's home after each incident, so it seems they're using their attendance at the art session to reduce carer costs. Probably not unreasonable practice for lower risk clients

In reply to flopsicle:
The HSE is very good in setting out the principles of ALARP. The website you've linked to is worth a read.